The power of III

16 July 2011

If The South was a nation during the time of the War for Southern Independence, at what point did it cease being a nation? The answer: it didn’t. The Confederate States of America was, of course, the political arm of the Southern nation, but the South was a nation long before the C.S.A. was formed, and it remains a nation to this day.

Before we continue, we need to define exactly what a “nation” is. Let’s start by looking at an example. The Cherokee Nation is a group of people living within the borders of the united States of America, yet they are known as a “nation”, and are recognized as such by law. So what makes them a nation? Is it a geographical area with clearly defined borders? No. Did they win through military victory? No, they were conquered militarily just as The South was. Is it international recognition? No, they have no ambassadors and conduct no foreign policy. No, it is none of these. What makes the Cherokee Nation a nation is that they are a homogeneous group of people sharing a similar background with a generally common ancestry.

Let’s look at how the word “Nation” was defined in the earliest published dictionary – Websters American Dictionary of The English Language published in 1828:

1. A body of people inhabiting the same country, or united under the same sovereign or government; as in the English nation; the French nation. It often happens that many nations are subject to one government; in which case,the word nation usually denotes a body of people speaking the same language, or a body that has formerly been under a distinct government, but has been conquered, or incorporated with a larger nation. Thus the empire of Russia comprehends many nations, as did formerly the Roman and Persian empires. Nation, as its etymology imports, originally denoted a family or race of men descended from a common progenitor, like tribe, but by emigration, conquest and intermixture of men of different families, this distinction is in most countries lost.

Can anyone reasonably claim that those of us who recognize The South as our homeland are any less of a nation than the Indian tribes? Not anyone who has given the matter any thought. There are, of course, those who will scoff at the notion of The South currently existing as a nation. Their reasoning however, is little more than a churlish, “You lost – get over it”. The South may no longer have a political structure and an agreed-upon name, such as the Confederate States of America, but we are still a unique people who fit the definition of “nation”. Just as many of the Cherokee people have spread out from the reservations and others now live among them, they are still here. The Southern people have lost the high concentration of a homogeneous people that we once had, but we are still here.

Once we understand that we are a nation and not just a scattering of people whose ancestors shared the dream of a new and politically independent nation, then the symbols of our heritage become not just dusty relics of history, but the national symbols of a distinct people. They become a national symbol every bit as much as the eagle is the symbol of the united States of America.

What then becomes the point of actually being a nation? In today’s world, not very much. In tomorrow’s world, perhaps something very different. In the mean time, we need to understand that the Confederate flag and other symbols of our Southern nation should be treated with the same respect and honor that the flag of the united States or any other nation is given.

It is true that, although the Confederate armed forces formally surrendered, the government never surrendered, never formally disbanded, and was never dissolved. It just faded into the mist. Does that mean that “The South Will Rise Again” as a reconstituted Confederate States of America? No, probably not – at least not as a political entity. The spirit of The South is another matter though.

As long as the Southern nation lives in the hearts of those who cherish the honor and the chivalry and the beauty of Southern culture, then The South has indeed risen.

"As long as the Southern nation lives in the hearts of those who cherish the honor and the chivalry and the beauty of Southern culture, then The South has indeed risen."

"Truth crushed to the earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again"--Jefferson Davis

The US Empire is moribund. The cultural differences between red and blue states has never been sharper. The post 1865 "Nation" has overextended militarily and economically.

I hope and work for Southern Independence from the United States of America.

In my mind, the constitutionally legal secessions in 1860-1861 were done by sovereign entities, which reconstituted into a new confederation out of expedient military necessity, as well as cultural kinship. These independent States were, like the Indian nations afterwards, conquered by the United States government.

Moreover, there was never a repeat State convention in a seceded state to re-ratify the US Constitution. As stated, the Davis administration and Confederate States Army disintegrated, but never capitulated politically to the United States.

Therefore, whether or not anyone acknowledges it politically, the Confederate States of America exists today, de jure. This has never been put to a legal test, and is unlikely to get an impartial hearing by any US federal court today.

Demographically, I worry for the future of an independent South based on the Confederate States government. Culturally Southern people are numerous, but at a disadvantage of declining birth rate. Infiltration of non-Southern cultural groups from North and South of their traditional border further dilute cultural Southerners within their borders. A relentless campaign at de-legitimization of Southern culture is on going, through the mainstream media, public schools, and entertainment companies towing the politically correct line. This is an effort to make Southern kids think of their heritage with disgust, and it works, sad to say.

As I have posted previously, it is important for the Southern independence movement to broaden its target audience to include all Southern born ethnic groups, at least those more than two generations settled in the South, where the culture has had time to blend with the non-native cultural elements. The third generation hispanic or transplanted northerner now thinks of the South as "home," or will recognize kinship with native culturally Southrons when the similarities are explained.

The left and right wing Southerners can be attracted in one way only, however: libertarianism. If they know that their new government will not be legislating an official religion, or specific issues like abortion, or other ideas that will polarize the population, they will recognize the inherent Freedom in such a system. Local and State laws can be passed that protect individuals, born and unborn, and private property rights, as the people in those locales see fit. This is the essence of de-Centralized government, and I believe, our best hope at attracting the largest following to our Cause. It is the breath of fresh air most non-Yankee Americans have been yearning to breathe.

As the economic situation deteriorates, our opportunity to make inroads in recruiting the newer Southerners, and convince culturally poisoned native Southerners that their interests lie locally, and not with the remote corporatist oligarchy in Washington that has destroyed their chance at prosperity.

"Leader of Violent Home Invasion Crew Sentenced to 10 Years"

I have to admit the first thing that came to mind at the phrase "violent home invasion crew" was not a group of drug thieves, but a SWAT Team.

So, if there are any LEO readers out there who are allowed or willing to comment here, I have a question.

(Non-LEO) Violent home invasions happen in our nation. Some have been documented where the invaders yell "Police" to deceive their victims.

What would you have me do if my home is invaded? Ask the invaders for paperwork and ID before grabbing a weapon? Automatically surrender?

Due to the dispersion of children in my house, staying put and calling 911 is not an option.

Here's an idea, which may have saved Jose Guerena's life.

If you have a search warrant, and you feel "at risk" or "in danger" with a citizen in his or her home, execute the search warrant when you know said citizen is gone.

They knew Guerena's schedule and his employer. They could have waited until one hour past his shift start, called his employer (or had boots on the ground confirm his arrival), and executed the search warrant with him absent.

No risk to officers, no risk to Guerena. Not as sexy a "dynamic entry", but not as dangerous, all the way around (I also can't help but take another dig at that "entry". You taxpayers in AZ funding that team's training are getting ripped off. Some SWAT teams are smooth and proficient in operation, but nothing at all about the Guerena entry was either smooth or sexy...).

I hope the good Sergeant has fun at Crossfit this week. Maybe you should scale back on the PT and spend some more time training your team...

I have two questions for any LEO's: In your experience, what percentage of the time was a logical thought process applied to execution of a mission, vs. going strictly by protocol?

2nd, of the ones by protocol, how many missions were led by junior officers (limited field experience) vs. senior officers with extensive field experience?

In my non LEO, non military life experience, only experienced leaders apply "gestalt" to a situation and assess based on their experience. The juniors, lacking the real experiences, are forced to follow by the book protocols.

...as the framers of the US Constitution intended.

Background

President James Madison, “father” of the Constitution: “[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist, No. 39 at 245.

Madison explains: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Federalist No. 48, February 1, 1788.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

---------------------------------------

Josephine County, Oregon -When Gil Gilbertson was sworn is as Sheriff of Josephine County, a rural county in southwest Oregon, in 2007, he had 30 years of law enforcement experience behind him, both in the United States and with various military missions overseas.

So when citizens of the county began coming to him complaining of "harassment" by U.S. Forest Service law enforcement officers (LEO), he said he'd investigate their concerns, figuring he could work things out with the local ranger district. After all, as the county's chief law enforcement officer he was in the "club" and moreover had gotten along with the "feds" - though he disagreed with their road closing policies and other efforts to keep the public off public lands which cover 68 percent of the rural county.

"You know, until about a year ago this wasn't even on my radar," Gilbertson told NewsWithViews. "It was the miners that were coming to me saying they were being harassed. I said I'd look into it."

He contacted the local ranger district for information, but instead of answers he was bluntly told that No, they couldn't, wouldn't discuss anything about any complaints with him, but he could file a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request and they'd get back to him.

"Go Pound Sand"

As talk-radio host Bill Meyer [of KMED] put it in an interview with Gilbertson, the Forest Service had essentially told the sheriff to "go pound sand." Federal agencies are notorious for taking months and years to answer FOIAs Meyer said.

"I'm not going to file any FOIA," Gilbertson told Meyer. "I think that they're obligated to impart that information to me."

On May 5, Gilbertson sent a blistering letter to the District Ranger of the Wild Rivers Ranger District in Caves Junction, setting down in no uncertain terms his objections not only to the Forest Service response to his requests for information but his dissatisfaction with USFS policies.

"Frankly, I was somewhat taken aback by your legal department's position advising you to not discuss issues with me," he wrote, adding he was "aghast" at the refusal to provide information without a FOIA "to find out what your agency is doing in regards to the citizens of this county." He continued:

As the CLEO [chief law enforcement officer] of this county, elected by the citizens, saddled with the expectation and responsibility to safeguard their rights, I fully intend to uphold the laws against any threat, inappropriate or unlawful actions against them.

The issues of illegal road closures, grazing, logging, minerals, taking land under the auspices of 'Monument' status, citizen complaints against your LEO agents, high unemployment and other socio-economic issues we all face today; coupled with the uncooperative nature presented by the USFS are causing me great concern about our relationship and future cooperation.

The following day he released the contents of the letter to the public at a meeting of the South West Oregon Mining Association which posted it on their website. He explained he'd been discussing the issue and sharing information with Sheriff Glenn Palmer of Grant County, Ore., who sent a similar letter [dated March 31] to Teresa Raaf, supervisor of Malheur National Forest.

In his letter Sheriff Palmer questioned the USFS's authority to engage in law enforcement within Grant county, declaring: "your jurisdiction as I see it is limited to the Federal Building in John Day" [the county seat]; and that the presence of USFS "Law Enforcement" violates Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

"Within the confines of Grant County, Oregon, the duties and responsibility of law enforcement will rest with the County Sheriff and his designees," he wrote.

An absolute outrage and a betrayal of the most basic and perhaps only legitimate reason to have a government: to protect the lives of the individuals living under it.

In an attempt to gain control over the States that are most independent of Washington control, Arizona and Texas, the progressive Statists in the Obama administration concoct an illegal operation to provide guns to Mexican cartels, in order to pad the numbers of American guns being recovered from criminal elements in Mexico.

It breaks down like this:

1. War on drugs creates incentives for illegal operations, like in Prohibition, in narcotics trafficking in Mexico

2. Democrats want to deny Americans of the means to resist increasing State size and control by limiting access to long guns by its citizens.

3. Democrats make secret policy, secret from constituents and citizens, Mexican government , and Honduran government, and allow multiple purchases of semiautomatic rifles in Southern border states, and allow the rifles to travel to known Mexican criminal elements.

5. As if American citizens were to blame for the situation, DOJ/Obama administration issues orders to track the purchase of multiple semiautomatic long arms in the border states, creating a database to track anyone.

6. Chutzpah is a Yiddish word that translates to unmitigated gall, obnoxious brashness, etc.,. Leo Rosten defined it by example: The man who murders his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the Court because he is an orphan.

7. New DOJ/progressive/anti 2nd amendment order tracking multiple long arm purchases is a classic NWO tyrannical ploy based on a false flag operation.

"Internal ATF emails seem to suggest that ATF agents were counseled to highlight a link between criminals and certain semi-automatic weapons in order to bolster a case for a rule like the one the DOJ announced yesterday [Monday]."

Townhall has obtained the email which states "Can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same FfL and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks Mark R. Chait Assistant Director Field Operations."

“The international expansion and increased violence of transnational criminal networks pose a significant threat to the United States. Federal, state and foreign law enforcement agencies have determined that certain types of semi-automatic rifles – greater than .22 caliber and with the ability to accept a detachable magazine – are highly sought after by dangerous drug trafficking organizations and frequently recovered at violent crime scenes near the Southwest Border. This new reporting measure -- tailored to focus only on multiple sales of these types of rifles to the same person within a five-day period -- will improve the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to detect and disrupt the illegal weapons trafficking networks responsible for diverting firearms from lawful commerce to criminals and criminal organizations. These targeted information requests will occur in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to help confront the problem of illegal gun trafficking into Mexico and along the Southwest Border.”

Once again, liberals and the Obama Administration are focused on guns rather than criminals and federal government incomptence. Operation Fast and Furious is looking more and more like a set up from the beginning to push Obama and Holder's radical anti-Second Amendment agenda as they used law abiding gun shop owners to enable government officals to break the law, then turned around and blamed the very same gun shops for illegal gun trafficking, despite those shops being forced by ATF to help ATF agents carry out Operation Fast and Furious, and now, those shops are being punished through new Justice Department gun control measures. Obama and Holder both have long records of being outspoken opponents of gunrights and both support the reinstatement of the "assault" rifle ban, better described as a ban on semi-automatic rifles. From the June issue of Townhall Magazine:

President Obama is calling for "commonsense" gun reforms, but as a man with a long a history of acting to limit Second Amendment rights and advocating gun control who tapped an attorney general with the same ideology -- and possibly the biggest gun trafficking scandal in U.S. history with his name written all over it -- is the president really calling for reforms or more government control?

As an Illinois state senator, Obama endorsed and spoke in support of an outright ban on ownership of all handguns and favored the licensing and registering of gun owners. Before his run for public office in 1996, Obama filled out a questionnaire expressing his support for a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.

Meanwhile, Rep. Darrell Issa and Senator Charles Grassley continue their investigation of Operation Fast and Furious and have requested detailed communications records, including emails, memos, briefing papers and handwritten notes from and between senior DOJ officials in two letters sent to Attorney General Eric Holder yesterday. Records referring to large firearms trafficking within the Phoenix ATF office have also been requested. This information must be provided by July 18 at noon:

As our investigation into Operation Fast and Furious has progressed, we have learned that senior officals at the Department of Justice, including Senate-confirmed political appointees, were unquestionably aware of the implementation of this reckless program. Therefore, it is necessary to review commncations between and among these senior officials. As such, please provide all records relating to communications between and among the following individuals regarding Operation Fast and Furious:

1) David Ogden, Former Deputy Attorney General

2) Gary Grindler, Office of the Attorney General and Former Acting Deputy Attorney General

3) James Cole, Deputy Attorney General (editors note: Cole issued the new reporting rules for border state gun shops Monday)

12 July 2011

Our very own Energy Secretary of The United States, Steven Chu, on banning the incandescent light bulb invented by the greatest American inventor ever, Thomas Alva Edison, in favor of the new toxic "green" spiral compact florescent (CFL) (mercury filled) bulb:

"We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money."

You see? Yankees know better than you how you should spend the money you EARN.

Y'all get it now?

Hey Edison: This new "progressive" America says you are an anachronism--its not about 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration anymore.

Now it's about who you know in the administration to trade favors with in order to kill your legitimate competition.

Whad'ya think about that, Thomas?

Mmm-hmm. Thought so.

Hey kids, stop playing with that mercury!

Mercury, mercury. Poison, poison. But other than that, them bulbs are "green." Make your face turn green, more like it.

Ya know, I feel richer already, knowin' Steven Chu is out there lookin' out for my wealth.

11 July 2011

Conventional wisdom: Putting your money into tax free US treasuries and other bonds is a safe and effective way to earn interest and increase your capital over time.

In fact:-Buying a Treasury bond is basically lending the US government money. -We know the government is incredibly in debt to begin with, and cannot possibly pay it off. -We know the planned inflation rate by the Fed is about 2%, but is running significantly higher.

Here is the situation: Investors are worried that the Euro will collapse because many European governments are in debt, and the worst affected are dragging down the stronger economies.

The tax paying European public, without their consent, is being made to pay for the risks taken by private industries, and now are having government cronies bail them out with the people's money.

Robbery, on an unbelievably massive scale. Same in the US, by the way.

So here is my question: With the US in a situation nearly as bad as any of the weak European countries as far as the ratio of debt to Gross domestic product (and therefore likely to default on loans), why would anyone in their right mind lend the US government thousands of dollars at a rate of 3% return (losing money vs. inflation after the term of the bond) instead of buying Gold, Silver, or another tangible asset that can only gain in dollar value as the US Dollar becomes less valuable?

Does that make sense to anyone? What kind of "safe haven" is that?

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Treasury yields have suffered a "one-two punch" after fears of a euro debt contagion followed bad economic news in the U.S. on Friday.

The 10-year note was up 22/32, knocking the yield below 3%.

Inflows to the bond market are proving strong as investors open their eyes to a potential debt default in Italy Stocks of Italy's largest banks, UniCredit SpA and Intesa, were down by more than 6% this morning.

"It not surprising that yields are low," says Shyam Rajan, a rates strategist at Bank of America. "With U.S. data still bad and problems in Europe, people will continue to buy Treasuries." Rajan is expecting increased inflows from mutualfunds.

While Greece seems to have escaped a default for now, problems in Spain and Italy have been popping up in the headlines. Europe's banking sector is significantly more exposed to Italian debt. Rajan notes that Italy has the highest level of government debt after the U.S. and Japan.

By the way: Ireland, Portugal, Greece, Spain, Italy all teeter on the brink, dragging down the more productive economies Europe. None have escaped default. The IMF, Americans, Chinese, and Europeans have only kicked the can.

Any public "cure" bleeds the productive public of their wealth to prevent a debt crisis. This only leads to a more severe crisis down the road.

If Europe crashes, it will bring down the US economy as well, and the Great Depression will look mild in retrospect.

Aaron Worthing of Breitbart's Big Government has been doing a good job trying to take the Left wing American Constitutional Society and Time magazine to task for publishing a Time magazine article containing over a dozen purely factual errors about the Constitution. The writer of the article, Richard Stengel, is a former director of the ACS, a big government foil to the Federalist Society.

Background: a few weeks back Time magazine published, as its cover story, an article by Richard Stengel on the Constituion. Reading it, I was stunned to discover fourteen clear factual errors in his piece, and I have been on a bit of a crusade since then to force Time to either correct or retract the article. And in the process I have been examining how other media outlets and organizations have treated Stengel.

Now, on the right we have the Federalist Society, a group of generally conservative scholars and other interested citizens devoted to the preservation of the Constitution. So the left decided it needed an organization like this too, so someone formed the American Constitution Society (ACS), meant to be a liberal alternative to the Federalist Society. (This shouldn’t be confused with the National Constitution Center, which by all appearances is an unrelated entity.) They state on their website that:

The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS) promotes the vitality of the U.S. Constitution and the fundamental values it expresses: individual rights and liberties, genuine equality, access to justice, democracy and the rule of law. The abiding principles are reflected in the vision of the Constitution’s framers and the wisdom of forward-looking leaders who have shaped our law throughout American history.

So they seem to care about the Constitution itself, or at least that is the implication. So I found it curious that their website presented Richard Stengel’s piece on the Constitution without any criticism. Go ahead, read their blog entry announcing Stengel’s piece. It’s not long. If they aren’t endorsing it (and it sure sounds like they are), they are definitely promoting it and without the slightest hint of criticism.

But even worse than that, they actually quote from this passage, again without a word of criticism:

If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so. Article I, Section 8, the longest section of the longest article of the Constitution, is a drumroll of congressional power. And it ends with the ‘necessary and proper’ clause, which delegates to Congress the power ‘to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department of Officer thereof.’ Limited government indeed.

(Emphasis added.) That is right, they actually quote from Stengel when he claims that there are no explicit limitations on Federal power in the Constitution. Folks, do I even have to explain why this is wrong, again? Even leaving aside the entire Bill of Rights, the Constitution is filled with limitations—primarily in Article I, Section 9, which includes (among other things) the following:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

These are each limits on the government. But for one reason or another, the American Constitution Society quoted where Stengel said that there were no explicit limits on the Federal Government without challenge, sending its readership unsuspecting to the Time magazine article with no indication that they even noticed such a basic error.

And indeed, the sole comment on the post is written by a man claiming to be Jonathan Adler (of Volokh). It says:

Whatever one may think of Stengel’s overall thesis, it is embarrassing that Time magazine would publish an article so riddled with basic factual errors (e.g. attributing provisions of the 13th and 15th Amendment to the 14th Amendment, claiming the Constitution prohibited female suffrage prior to the 19th Amendment, etc.). Even more embarrassing is for so many basic errors to be made by the former CEO of the National Constitution Center. So I find it odd that the essay would be promoted by an organization like ACS.

I am willing to bet that is Adler since he complained to me specifically about that blog post. And yet despite the fact that this comment was written the day after the post first appeared, that entry remains, without any update contradicting or criticizing of Stengel’s piece.

Now, on their “Contact Us” page, they say:

If you are a member of the press seeking a statement from a legal or policy expert, please contact Alex Wohl, [email] or Jeremy Leaming, [email].

So I decided to seek their expertise…

Dear Sir,

My name is Aaron Worthing, Esq. The ACS site asserts that if I would like a statement from a legal or policy expert, I should write to you both. So I formally request your expert opinion on the subject of Richard Stengel’s cover story for Time magazine, entitled “One Document, Under Siege.” As an attorney and a student of history, I found fourteen clear factual errors in Mr. Stengel’s piece, which I documented here.

Limiting the list of errors to those that concern the interpretation of the Federal Constitution, they are:

The Constitution does not limit the Federal Government.

The Constitution is not law.

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment emancipated the slaves.

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment granted the right to vote to African Americans.

The original Constitution declared that black people were to be counted as three-fifths of a person.

The original, unamended Constitution prohibited women from voting.

The Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to tax individuals based on whether they buy a product or service.

Social Security is a debt within the meaning of Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment.

So I would like it if you would share your expert opinion on the subject. Am I correct in assessing that Mr. Stengel has made each of those errors? And if not, why not?

And I also ask whether the ACS will join me in calling for Time magazine to either retract or correct that article. The ACS bills itself as a society devoted to the Constitution and states that it is seeking to “revitalize[e] and transform[] legal and policy debates in classrooms, courtrooms, legislature and the media, and we are building a diverse and dynamic network of progressives committed to justice.” I have no doubt that your organization wants people to learn what is actually in the Constitution and not misinformation.

Some refreshing words from the Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner this morning on Meet the Press. He had this to say: (15:20 into thisclip) Note: An 8 second clip of Tim's words: Link

We don’t have the ability (because of the overhang in housing and the problems in the financial sector) to engineer artificially a stronger recovery.

Imagine that! Geithner acknowledges what I (and many others) have felt all along. The structural issues in the economy trump the government’s ability to engineer a recovery.

The Fed has taken extraordinary measures on the monetary front. Since 2009 we have had $1.2 trillion of fiscal stimulus measures as well. We have had TARP and the bailouts of Fannie and Freddie. But the evidence is clear that it has not worked. Unemployment is today near a record and the more important measure, U6, is at 16.2% (about where it was a year ago) Nothing that has been done has moved the needle.

Geithner might have put it differently. He could have really put it on the line. I would have preferred that he had said:

"Keynesian economics has not worked. At best, it has given us a small reprieve from the restructuring that must happen. Our government can’t fight the forces of economics any better than we can fight the forces of nature. Large stimulus measures will not bring the desired results. We have to suck it up and take some pain. We can’t go on spending money that we don’t have to fix a problem that can’t be fixed. If we tried, it would be just be a waste of time and precious financial resources. We can no longer afford to throw good money after bad."

Of course Tim was not as blunt as that. But read his words. It means the same thing. Sorry Keynesians, I know the truth hurts.

About Me

Father of three, religious, distrustful of any authority not able to consistently demonstrate competency at its mandated task. Lineally descended physically and spiritually from colonial leadership, Revolutionary War veterans, and veterans of the War of Northern Aggression.